Slashdot Mirror
Greece, UK Go Different Directions On Biometric ID
An anonymous reader submits "David Blunkett, the UK's labour Home Secretary, today announced plans to fingerprint and iris scan all British citizens by 2013 for a new compulsory ID card. The majority of negative feedback to government consultation on the scheme was discounted because it was sent via an online service."
On the other hand, securitas writes "Greece's Data Protection Authority - the national privacy watchdog - 'banned Athens International Airport from checking and recording passengers' fingerprints and irises as part of a pilot security program saying it was in breach of local privacy laws.' (That's 'pilot' as in 'trial,' not the people who fly the planes). The scheme, funded by the European Union and the Swiss government, involved embedding the biometric data on smart cards issued to travelers on a voluntary basis."
The motherfucking FIRST MOAT!!
A (non online) poll indicated about 80% of people in the UK were in favour of mandatory ID cards.
no sig.
a small, but possibly signifigant point. british people are subjects, rather than citizens.
so... from merriam-webster
citizen - 1 : one that is placed under authority or control: as a : VASSAL b (1) : one subject to a monarch and governed by the monarch's law (2) : one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state
subject - 1 : an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman 2 a : a member of a state b : a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it
and to finish: "citizen" is preferred for one owing allegiance to a state in which sovereign power is retained by the people and sharing in the political rights of those people (the rights of a free citizen). "subject" implies allegiance to a personal sovereign such as a monarch (the king's subjects).
Currently you need several forms of identification to get anything important. When there is a one-size-fits-all solution that is officially deemed perfectly secure, the fraud and deception will take off, and the whole thing will collapse.
Stick Men
The main problem with biometric schemes is that it is (almost) impossible to contest.
The card holds your biometric data (say finger-print and iris scan). If card production is cracked, the cards can then be forged -- making the biometric data useless. This is comparable to pasting in another picture on a drivers license.
To prevent this, the biometric data can be stored elsewhere. One copy (the one that can't be repudiated) is on the person. One copy may be on the card (if the card is secure). Typically, one *more* copy is on a computer.
The "client" is scanned, and biometric data is compared against the stored copy. Hack attempts portrayed on movies have the "bad guys" using cut off fingers, etc. to beat the system. But this isn't the attack point of choice.
If the biometric data is modified in the stored computer file, we have a problem. Someone makes a change saying "this person is a terrorist". Or another identity change. You CAN'T change your biometric data, and governments aren't likely to reveal what is in the "secret" files.
So, a hacker seeds data in a computer somewhere, and the next time you travel, BAM, you are arrested with no way of proving that it ISN'T you. Of course its you, the biometric data matches.
Any compromise in the system is very bad. This is a very bad thing. The privacy thing is a canard -- not being able to repudiate the biometric data makes it almost impossible to correct records, and reclaim identity through government layers.
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
"The majority of negative feedback to government consultation on the scheme was discounted because it was sent via an online service."
How convenient.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
in the form of photo passports and photo driving licenses.
The benefit of these are that ANYONE can authenticate them.
OK, so they can be forged, but so will ID cards bearing other forms of biometric ID.
Blunkett claims these will prevent crime and terrorism.
how?
How will my ID card prevent me from being duffed over on the way home from the pub?
Will it contain a small camera or recording device?
How will my ID card prevent me from getting my house robbed?
Will it have an integrated alarm?
How will my ID card prevent me from geting my plane hijacked and glown into a building?
Will it contain a cutting edge and a parachute?
The Telegraph newspaper said in Leader today (12 Nov), "Opinion polls show that a majority of the public supports ID cards, as long as they are paid for by somebody else".
The main problem is that people's opinions are being shaped by the false distorted view, that ID cards would solve our ills of illegal immigration, crime and terrorism.
The carrying of these biometric ID cards is a red herring - there is no need to carry a card - you carry your data on you at all times.
Your eye scan and/or fingerprint data will be on a national database.
FACT: it will be very simple to identify you anywhere with a portable scanner.
Once data is transmitted to base - they can have your identity within seconds - ask Blunkett to deny that fact.
The ID Card itself is totally irrelevant - it is a means to an end.
Just as the Nazi's did to the Jews in 1942 - the New Labour government have your number branded to you.
The analogy is correct - or does anybody deny that you can be read like some barcode on the till at Tesco?
Even without being scanned, the 'stop and search' will be a dehumanising experience for those undergoing it.
More trouble ahead.
With this and RIP Act - it is clear to me that the New Labour Government wants a surveillance society.
www.SKILFUL.com
This British citizen lives in the US and has never been back. I'll be very impressed if they manage to issue anything for me. And I was born and lived in 3rd world countries most of my life so all attempts at tightening up birth certificates etc issued in the UK won't achieve anything.
And of course all the tourists plus citizens of other European countries working in Britain (as allowed by EC rules) won't have them either.
So if someone is supposed to check your biometric id and you say you don't have one, how can they check that is true? Well, if they knew who you are then they could verify that you don't have one. And how do the know who you are? How about a different form of id? Well, the bad guys will just go ahead and forge that.
In general almost all the forms of id fail in the above way, unless you close your borders. There isn't any need for all this new waste of money. If *existing* laws and regulations had been enforced then things like September the 11th wouldn't have happened, or with far fewer hijackers.
The usually unaddressed problem with what Vernor Vinge called "ubiquitous law enforcement" is that it is brittle. Systems that might work in legal theory but have always had some slack in them during their evolution, can fail in human terms when all the slack is removed using technology. Add the reality of errors and there's a recipe for grave injustice. A British tourist was recently arrested in South Africa because of a similarity of name with someone the CIA had fingered (without proof) as a terrorist. Add biometrics and the kind of legislation we've seen recently, and it isn't hard to imagine Joe Average going from a person with a life to a hunted unperson with no resources to clear his name, and escalating knock-on effects irretriveably destroying status he's spent his life building up, in a matter of seconds. And I fear that when this happens to people, they will find themselves shunned - completely on their own. If you live in the USA or much of the EU, consider moving to a country where this kind of thing is less likely. I really like Spain. The Spanish are proud, stylish, they only got rid of the fascists 20 years ago and they don't want them back, and best of all, everyone's paperwork is always screwed up in that delightful Latin way, so no-one cares unless you happen to be a serious pain in the ass like a gangster.
This whole idea is silly. Not only do people have to pay for them, but are also expected to carry it everywhere.
There are people with medical conditions who need to carry medecins and the like -- they forget sometimes. And they think people are going to carry a card everywhere that they don't need? Unless they start forcing people to carry one by law, nobody will. And if they *did* start forcing the issue, people will rebel against it.
So either way, it's a doomed project.
What will happen is that the courts will accept certain evidences as un-contestable.
So persons with access to the evidence trail/databases can more easily prove someone guiltly (who isn't) because the forgery is percieved to be difficult.
When the storage methods for evidence etc are themselves subject toi screcy, proving tampering will be very difficult for the defendent.
There is a solution: prosecution must prove that the evidence was not tampered with.
Are the French more controlling than the British?
I thought it was the other way around. In the nanny state in Britain a person's not able to defend themselves. Why, I read an article recently about how a woman was going home from her knitting circle when she was attacked and to defend herself she used her knitting needle. Because she used a "dangerous weapon" she was charged. I haven't as yet heard that a person isn't able to defend themselves in France.
Should there be a Law?